JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.—A very pitiable condition of landholder is before this Court his land was acquired way back in the year 1984 and cheques given to his father in lieu of land taken by petitioner were dishonoured, we are in the year 2017. 2. This Court has passed the following order on 21.3.1994: “This writ petition against an award passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 7.2.1994 on application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Against such an award first appeal lies. This writ petition as such cannot be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to cite some authorities in support of his plea that in spite of provision of first appeal High Court should entertain the writ petition. Put up this writ petition tomorrow.” 3. After this the appeal was never preferred and on 28.11.1994 the following order came to be passed : “Petitioner is directed to served respondent No. 4 personally within two weeks and they may file counter-affidavit within two weeks thereafter.” 4. The claimant is not paid, though the petition came to be dismissed for default however, the same was restored on 6.12.2013. Since 1994 this petition is not admitted but the same is taken up for final adjudication. 5. The District Magistrate, Bareilly made a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) as according to the claimant the awarded amount was not adequate. The learned Judge gave elaborate finding on all the six issues and passed the following order dated 7.2.1914 : “The reference is allowed and it is declared that the objector Namo Narain is entitled to the compensation of the land acquired by the B.D.A. at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. meter. He will also get 15% interest from the date of possession. He will also get 30% solatium on the compensation. The amount received by the objector shall be adjusted in the total compensation paid.” 6. It is an admitted position that an appeal lies to the High Court against judgment made under Section 18 of Act, 1894. meter. He will also get 15% interest from the date of possession. He will also get 30% solatium on the compensation. The amount received by the objector shall be adjusted in the total compensation paid.” 6. It is an admitted position that an appeal lies to the High Court against judgment made under Section 18 of Act, 1894. Despite that the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as “B.D.A.-Petitioner”) has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which again is enormous as petition of this kind would be only under Article 227 and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, this petition requires to be dismissed but would not bring end sorrow to the land owner who has passed away long back. 7. Be that as it may, without relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy, this petition is heard on merit. 8. The brief facts of this case are that compensation for the plot No. 239(21 bigha 2 biswas in area equal to 53366 sq. meters) be paid at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. meter plus 30% soletium and 15% interest w.e.f. 21.3.1984 the date on which admittedly possession was taken by the B.D.A.-Petitioner. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”) as per his award dated 15.10.1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 24,82,335.52 inclusive of 15% soletium and 10% acquisition cost as compensation. On account Rs. 10,00,000/-. was paid by two cheques dated 9.10.1984 of Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the land owner, Sri Namo Narain Agarwal, respondent-4. On 15.10.1984, one of these cheques were cashed and credited to S.B. Account No. 3687 on 16.10.1984 and the other one was credited to the same S.B. Account on 23.10.1984. Further a balance of Rs. 14,39,928.01 was paid to Sri Namo Narain Agarwal on 17.10.1986 immediately after SLAO passed award dated 15.10.1988. The land in question consisting of plot No. 239 (21 bighas 2 biswas equal to 53366 sq. meters) of Village Udaipur Khas) was required by the Bareilly Development Authority for residential purposes. The Bareilly Development Authority negotiated the matter with the owner and by his letter dated 22.8.1993, he offered the land at Rs. 50/- per sq. meter. 9. The land in question consisting of plot No. 239 (21 bighas 2 biswas equal to 53366 sq. meters) of Village Udaipur Khas) was required by the Bareilly Development Authority for residential purposes. The Bareilly Development Authority negotiated the matter with the owner and by his letter dated 22.8.1993, he offered the land at Rs. 50/- per sq. meter. 9. A birds eye view of the provisions of Section 18 will have to be kept in mind so as to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the decisions cited by him. 10. Section 18 of Act, 1894 reads as follows : “18 Reference to Court. (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made, (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has heavily relied on the decisions of Apex Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsing Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695 , Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRS and others, (2011) 2 SCC 54 , Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2013) 14 SCC 50 and Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2015) 6 SCC 412 . 12. 12. It is an admitted position of fact that petitioner is a authority who has not honoured its commitment, most unfortunately cheques given by them to claimants were returned dishonoured which is a fact, which was not argued before this Court but it is evident from the record and the judgment of Reference Court also goes to show that the learned Judge has considered the facts in its entirety. After the cheques were dishonoured the objector filed objection before Land Acquisition Officer and an award was passed on 15.10.1986. The objector moved the authority under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and reference was made by the District Magistrate. 13. This facts have not been denied by petitioner in its written statement before the District Court. The possession of the land was taken way back on 21.3.1994. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the land never came to be required under the Act,1894 and no notification under Section 6 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were ever issued, nor was any notice under Section 9 of Act, 1894 was issued at any stage. However, once having participated by taking the land this ground is not available to the petitioner. 14. The judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRS and others (supra), the judgment cannot help the petitioner as in the said case D.D.A. was not made a party and the High Court decided the matter in absence of D.D.A. and that is how the Apex Court condoned the delay and directed rehearing of the reference. It could not be said that B.D.A. (petitioner) was not represented nor was given any chance to make submission. It was a person who are interested and being heard at length hence, this submission by learned counsel for petitioner will not permit me to remand this case. The decision of Apex Court in Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) the Apex Court held that the owner has to prove that the compensation was not proper. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. In this case the decision of the Court below goes to show that Reference Court has given elaborate reasons and has discussed what would be adequacy of compensation and on facts has held in favour of the claimants that being a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India however the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the finding of fact is perverse so as to call for any interference as far as quantum is concerned and hence this judgment is of no avail to petitioner in the factual scenario as it emerges in the facts before this Court. In Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsing Rao and others (supra) the submission was made that the Reference Court could not have suo motu taken on itself to enhance compensation. The opening words of order impugned herein itself shows that it is a reference by District Judge hence Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of this case. On the contrary, it helps the claimant/respondent. We are dealing with special legislation and, therefore, VIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly had a power of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on reference being made he has acted with new diligence and hence this judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner will have no application in the facts of this case. The learned Judge was vested with the powers under Section 18 of Act, 1894. The learned Judge was vested with the powers under Section 18 of Act, 1894. As far as the decision Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others (supra) is concerned in this case that the petitioner cannot argue that there was breach of terms of agreement as it is they who have flouted the terms of agreement which is clear from the judgment rather the terms of agreement on which reliance is so heavily placed was not even placed before the learned Judge which is evident from decision on issue No. 4 which reads as follows : “No agreement was placed by the learned counsel for the B.D.A. on this point. Hence the claim is within time” 15. It is cordial principle that remedy of writ petition is not available to enforce contractual liability once petitioner states that there was an agreement it is in the realm of contract. The writ petition cannot be entertain to enforce a liability arising out of a contract what is averred in the writ petition that once the contract was entertained into, namely agreement the reference was bad. I am fortify my view the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise Taxation Officer, (1975) 1 SCC 737 . It is very clear that the powers confirms on the High Court are special powers as early as 1952 in Jodhey v. State, AIR 1952 All 788 . The Court held as follows : “There are no limits, fetters or restrictions placed on this power of superintendence in this clause and the purpose of this Article seems to be to make the High Court the custodian of all justice within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and to arm it with a weapon that could be wielded for the purpose of seeing that justice is meted out fairly and properly by the bodies mentioned herein.” 16. Therefore within these constrains the jurisdiction will have to be exercised. There is a distinguish exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in this case this is a writ under Article 227 challenging the order of Court below. Therefore within these constrains the jurisdiction will have to be exercised. There is a distinguish exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in this case this is a writ under Article 227 challenging the order of Court below. Thus the petitioner having not avail alternative remedy which was the remedy available to it, the Apex Court in Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 , hence also this writ petition fails on both ground even on merit, there is no case mad out. 17. The facts will not permit this Court to take a different view then that passed by learned Judge acting as a Authority under Section 18 of Act, 1894. 18. This petition being devoid of merits both on facts and on law as nothing is proved that there is perversity in the judgment of the Court below which would permit this Court to quash and set aside the well reasoned judgment awarding additional compensation to the claimants. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- as claimants are kept without any amount for period of 36 years though their land were acquired in the year 1984. The award is confirmed. The amount be deposited with the trial authority, if not deposited yet within a period of 12 weeks from today. There is no controversy whether the land which was acquired can be used or not only submission raised by the respondent that there was a Notification by the State Government for the acquisition of land and, therefore, I have not dealt with the said submission.